Trouble logging in?We were forced to invalidate all account passwords. You will have to reset your password to login. If you have trouble resetting your password, please send us a message with as much helpful information as possible, such as your username and any email addresses you may have used to register. Whatever you do, please do not create a new account. That is not the right solution, and it is against our forum rules to own multiple accounts.

And, finally, we need only to take a look at anime itself to see how perceptions of beauty can change. Quite a number of non-Japanese observers have noticed, by now, that anime characters assimilate both Western and Japanese physical features to produce an "idealised" form of beauty. One writer had even mused that this could be a sign of an emerging "monoculture".

Where this gets really interesting is when you throw cosplay into the mix.

For example, I consider Megumi Natsume to be the most beautiful girl I've ever seen, even after mentally compensating for the fact I'm pretty sure that she's been touched up in Photoshop there. She has a number of traits I find extremely attractive.

The caveat? I have never seen her outside of costume. It seem to me like that should matter, but I always just end up thinking "meh, as long as the wig and contacts are convincing, is it really a problem? How is it different from just changing clothes?".

There are also more "subjective" features like eye color, hair color, structure of cheekbones, etc., where people will probably disagree as to what is most desirable. Still, I think among people of European descent there is a preference for light-colored eyes and light-colored hair.

There are also more "subjective" features like eye color, hair color, structure of cheekbones, etc., where people will probably disagree as to what is most desirable. Still, I think among people of European descent there is a preference for light-colored eyes and light-colored hair.

Say what? In general, considered by whom? Where do you get these notions? Those lists are extremely debatable and subjective. Got some linkage to research or studies?

Say what? In general, considered by whom? Where do you get these notions? Those lists are extremely debatable and subjective. Got some linkage to research or studies?

While the lists were entirely arbitrary, they do contain a handful of traits that researchers have found men to be consistently attracted to, like symmetrical features and clear skin. There is also an observed tendency for men to be attracted to young-looking women.

Generally, these preferences have understandable motivations, from an evolutionary viewpoint. Women with symmetrical features and clear skin are more likely to be healthy and capable of surviving child birth. That's apparently the same evolutionary instinct that spurs men towards young-looking women.

And, apparently, studies have also found that the only universal ideal in the physical beauty of women is their waist-to-hip ratio, which makes evolutionary sense as a woman needs to have wide-enough hips to bear children safely.

Unfortunately, pin-pointing the "ideal ratio" is an entirely different matter and, historically, we've gone from the exaggerated hourglass figure of Victorian women to today's thin-as-a-rake supermodels. This essay I found suggests that "healthy, reproductively-capable women have a waist-to-hip ratio of between 0.67 to 0.80. A ratio of 0.70 was found to be the average ideal, across time and culture, regardless of the woman's overall body size and weight".

While the essay contains no references to published papers, I don't find it entirely far-fetched.

While the lists were entirely arbitrary, they do contain a handful of traits that researchers have found men to be consistently attracted to, like symmetrical features and clear skin. There is also an observed tendency for men to be attracted to young-looking women.

Generally, these preferences have understandable motivations, from an evolutionary viewpoint. Women with symmetrical features and clear skin are more likely to be healthy and capable of surviving child birth. That's apparently the same evolutionary instinct that spurs men towards young-looking women.

And, apparently, studies have also found that the only universal ideal in the physical beauty of women is their waist-to-hip ratio, which makes evolutionary sense as a woman needs to have wide-enough hips to bear children safely.

Wouldn't you consider evolution as innate and therefore count clear skin and symmetrical features natural?

Quote:

Originally Posted by TinyRedLeaf

Unfortunately, pin-pointing the "ideal ratio" is an entirely different matter and, historically, we've gone from the exaggerated hourglass figure of Victorian women to today's thin-as-a-rake supermodels. This essay I found suggests that "healthy, reproductively-capable women have a waist-to-hip ratio of between 0.67 to 0.80. A ratio of 0.70 was found to be the average ideal, across time and culture, regardless of the woman's overall body size and weight".

I'll make it plain. Supermodels(today) are visibly unhealthy, (an evolutionary sytemized trait you say repels men) and yet they're portrayed in magazines in a different way. How do you explain this?

Have you researched this? If that is true, then whites are genetically, appearance-wise superior.

Research in this area is limited (though extant; a few of the features I mentioned, like symmetry of features, has been explored), so I combined it with what I get out of looking at what sorts of features get held up in medias, beauty magazines, etc. around the world as being attractive. I presume that these outlets are at least partly representative of general opinion, though I acknowledge that they also shape it.

As for whether "whites" are genetically appearance-wise superior, that depends on the sub-population to which they belong. I don't think white people can be lumped together as a homogeneous group.

Quote:

I'll make it plain. Supermodels(today) are visibly unhealthy, (an evolutionary sytemized trait you say repels men) and yet they're portrayed in magazines in a different way. How do you explain this?

It's not necessary for the ideal to match reality.

Nature makes mistakes.

Also, this thread has a lack of picture links, which is odd when talking about physical attractiveness.

I think it was the "tall" attribute I found odd and set me wondering about the other attributes. I'm not disputing symmetry or other fairly universal traits... that list just seemed very "european"-centric.

Supermodels(today) are visibly unhealthy, (an evolutionary sytemized trait you say repels men) and yet they're portrayed in magazines in a different way. How do you explain this?

Read the essay I linked. The author gives a fairly convincing explanation for this apparently odd mismatch between "beauty" and evolutionary instinct.

Here's the specific quote that directly answers your question:

Quote:

"This is not to say that some of our culturally-based preferences are completely arbitrary; at times, the current era's preferences in a mate reflect important concerns. For instance, we find that in cultures during times of famine or even less severe need (but need, nonetheless) that the ideal standard of beauty for women is a much larger body size. Larger size and more body fat reflect status; it means she is well fed and healthy during a time when thinness would reflect malnutrition.

"However, during times of plenty, (like here in America), plumpness is not a reflection of status. Likewise, during eras in which lower-class labourers toiled predominantly outside for hours a day, tanned skin was an indication of lower status, and therefore the ideal standard of female beauty was very pale skin; women during those times actually used white powdered cosmetics to exaggerate the paleness of their skin. Now, however, tanness is a reflection of leisure time (and higher status), so women strive for darker skin tones."

As for the supposed evolutionary preferences for symmetry and clear skin, I'm not sure how much weight we can put on those observations. After all, despite these observations, the evidence clearly shows that cultural and media influences matter a great deal more when it comes to how we perceive beauty. While it's possible that instincts compel us to look out for these traits, cultural and media influences add another layer to how we perceive "health" and "fertility", so it's impossible, really, to tell where instincts end and conditioned behaviour begins.

In other words, our idea of "beauty" comes from both nature and nurture, just like most of our other beliefs. There is no universal standard, and probably never will be, unless we somehow develop the so-called "monoculture" (highly improbable) I referred to earlier.

And, as many people here have already pointed out, physical beauty alone does not determine who you're attracted to. First impressions count, yes, but after that, everything else about that person — his or her personality, thoughts and behaviour — will determine whether or not you like him or her.

Yes, nature and nurture, I agree. But it would be wise to take a less anthropocentric view of physical attraction. There doesn't have to be a human explanation for everything. Humans did not pop out of the evolutionary chain fully formed. We are the products of all that came before us. Somewhere down that line, certain confounding effects might have occurred that, today, biases our perceptions in its entirety.

I like to use eye color as a classic example. Blue eyes are considered beautiful and attractive. Does that imply there has to be some objective evolutionary benefits associated with blue eyes? No, not really. It could be that the preference for blue eyes is simply a product of the preference for the color blue, which might not have had anything to do with eyes to begin with. What else is blue? Well, water, and one could easily see how an affinity to sources of water would be beneficial for an organism.

Ergo, the attraction to the color blue, and blue eyes.

A similar argument could be made for hair and skin color. Humans are diurnal animals. We do not like the dark, because we can't see in it, and all sorts of predators come out at night - predators that might have, once upon a time, hunted our chimp ancestors. We thus associate darkness with negative values like fear, danger, and harm. Is it so surprising that this sort of color bias in nature might then translate to color bias when seeking mates? Not really.

A lot of this physical attraction thing could just be shallow side-effects of other evolutionary factors.

I like to use eye color as a classic example. Blue eyes are considered beautiful and attractive. Does that imply there has to be some objective evolutionary benefits associated with blue eyes? No, not really. It could be that the preference for blue eyes is simply a product of the preference for the color blue, which might not have had anything to do with eyes to begin with. What else is blue? Well, water, and one could easily see how an affinity to sources of water would be beneficial for an organism.

Ergo, the attraction to the color blue, and blue eyes.

Interesting guess. I'd disagree with it, though. Here's why:

* Blue eyes have been found to be at an evolutionary disadvantage to brown eyes. They don't adjust to changes in light as quickly as brown eyes. (How big of a deal was this back before the days of artificial lighting? Maybe not terribly important.)

* The idea about the correlation with water is interesting, but humans aren't attracted to all things blue or water-colored (nor are other organisms).

* Blue eyes are recessive, meaning that in a population of mixed blue and brown eyes, blue eyes will be much more rare (approximately one in four people would have blue eyes). If you agreed with me earlier when I said that humans like rare/exotic things, then that could also explain the attraction for blue eyes.

Although I disagree with the notion that blue eyes in general are attractive. I'm turned off by blue eyes, as is my fiancee. The opinions of one man and one woman don't count for everyone, and I know that there are many people who do prefer blue eyes to brown eyes, but... well, that's the trouble with generalizations

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lathdrinor

A similar argument could be made for hair and skin color. Humans are diurnal animals. We do not like the dark, because we can't see in it, and all sorts of predators come out at night - predators that might have, once upon a time, hunted our chimp ancestors. We thus associate darkness with negative values like fear, danger, and harm. Is it so surprising that this sort of color bias in nature might then translate to color bias when seeking mates? Not really.

Again, interesting idea, but I disagree. Humans don't have an aversion to the color black or brown, in general. Humans don't fear the darkness because it's the color black; they fear it because they can't see. Try covering any sight-based animal's eyes and, regardles of the time of day, or whether you used a black blindfold or a white one, they get pretty panicky.

In the past, lighter skin tones were rare due to sun exposure. As society evolved, lighter skin tones were likely associated with power and wealth (those who had the luxury of staying out of the sun, and having others work for them). In modern society, many crimes are committed by people of darker skin tones, just due to the way that races and socioeconomic status developed, and hence many people have an aversion there. It's all learned.

Yet another example of that is with people from the Middle East. A few years ago (before the year 2001) nobody paid much attention to Middle Easterners. These days, if you see a guy in a turban or a woman wearing a hijab walking down the street, you'll notice that many people are nervous. This is because an association has been made by much of society between those people (Middle Easterners/Muslims) and terrorists. If very pale people began committing major crimes over the course of a few years, and perhaps darker-skinned people simultaneously appeared less frequently in criminal reports, then a reversal would very likely occur.

You're correct in tracing things back, however. Many of these concepts and ideas started from something, but whether it's biological or societal in nature is a bit harder to discern. I tend to think that much of what we observe today originated from societal origins.

I won't vote because I have no particular preference toward any kind of race. Whether the girl is European, African, Middle Eastern or Asian, I don't care. What matters is her personality and how well she can think for herself rather than follow certain cultural anxioms like a slave, or be the kind of person who just does what she's told without thinking. That's what happened with me and my ex and it was agonizing for me. Anyways, if someone pointed a gun to my head and told me to choose, I'd either go for my own race (white caucasian as I'm Italian), or East Asian.

Evolution, nature, genes or race won't decide anything, they can only affect your preference to a certain degree. Naturally we are supposed to be picking mates by various genetic clues expressed in different ways from the body.

Naturally we are supposed to be picking mates not just by looks, also by smell, which in the modern world, has become lost in an atmosphere of various other smells. People put on perfume, cologne and stuff, combined with many other smells in the atmosphere, our noses are not efficient enough.

Scientists say you can tell the genetic health of a person just by looking at a single patch of skin, but beauty and health care products can solve or mask problems easily nowadays.

Humans have transcended evolution in making oneself more desirable, especially true with the completely unnatural factor of money. Money makes one more or less desirable.

There are also more "subjective" features like eye color, hair color, structure of cheekbones, etc., where people will probably disagree as to what is most desirable. Still, I think among people of European descent there is a preference for light-colored eyes and light-colored hair.

I thought most male don't find female who are taller than them not attractive and I think some do like people that are shorter than them.
Also the light skin and dark thing is so freaking wrong. Look at how many females are getting tan these days.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ledgem

* Blue eyes are recessive, meaning that in a population of mixed blue and brown eyes, blue eyes will be much more rare (approximately one in four people would have blue eyes). If you agreed with me earlier when I said that humans like rare/exotic things, then that could also explain the attraction for blue eyes.

Although I disagree with the notion that blue eyes in general are attractive. I'm turned off by blue eyes, as is my fiancee. The opinions of one man and one woman don't count for everyone, and I know that there are many people who do prefer blue eyes to brown eyes, but... well, that's the trouble with generalizations

Actually I find blue eyes unattractive as well, to be honest I find it rather creepy and so does my dad. I wonder if that has anything to do with lack of blue eyes in Asia, rare things could be exotic but it could also look quite repulsive as well. Anyhow yeah things like dark skin is probably result from nurture rather than nature.

I can't quite agree with this. Understanding you meant standard of beauty, at least the the trait of being human is universally considered a requirement for attraction.

No, it isn't. Universal means that every single person alive feels that way. I guarantee you, not everyone feels that way, and we probably don't even need to consider those with mental illness to make that statement.